Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
When others say a book in a series is standalone and it's not.
I don't actually know of any book in a series that's 100% standalone.
|
Nancy Drew and the Secret of Shadow Ranch ?
And, why do you care what other people say? They’re entitled to their opinion in this instance just as you are. Also, this one is getting pretty stale. We know.
Seriously, by insisting on an “all-or-nothing” standard you’re eliminating a very useful distinction. I personally would like to see adopted a differentiation in terms between “series” and “serial”. Series would apply to books where there’s little if any overarching story, although there might be changes in situations that do
not, however, materially affect the plotting and resolution of an individual book. Serial, obviously, would apply to books where events in the individual books are part of and matter to the long-running story. Ideally, the books are structured in themselves although that’s not always the case. It’s the difference between Harry Potter and the Hardy Boys.
I’ve said it before; we’ve been spoiled by digital availability. Back in the paper days, reading a series would be conditioned significantly by what was available to you, whether in bookstores, the library, a personal borrow. We all, except for perhaps one exception
read books out of order or missed out some in a series.
I’ve also said that there are many series where I think the reading experience would be best served in the long run if you started with the second or third book, once the author’s found her legs. The popular series that I expected to like but I abandoned after the first book (and frequently abandoned that) are legion. Two that occur to me are Inspector Gamache and Bruno Chief of Police. People love them but the first book in each was awful. I assume the series got better, but I was done.